From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mon Jun 3 22:29:06 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5D315BFC89 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 22:29:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com (mail-lf1-f66.google.com [209.85.167.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ABA47267E for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 22:29:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id y198so4358965lfa.1 for ; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:29:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OOgxBlTfDDLv6Xnz/8jUHfkAwVdQjRGvmMriKV+TtkU=; b=b5kP+awuCL6K6dxIIOfFK/N4TiRXh7bbocFlb8JAHBgLsHrAJqE50lCMUhaKzk4Vws OARdpLrhapr5iW4wGgCY5KO2S2b86wvjeW0HXqCniXT5YnZyBl/6QuGI+Et1yhd6xTIo rKF6vQkIj1WX5sXgmjzS6x6eGHYO56TYTZeLDTOAd7X7BqZC+xjNktI3f7HZFa6zywFJ XsyRdrxZLQz31x32XHzy2MUIv0yAr8AS8KrvN0NkDVBrnAx40xNdaBZB1MGfZVzC9/v/ DzypbWqWpBE4QnNGzNCyMz3Wj2F4kzz9hHQdKW2E09WwrgalmBleDp62jj6sha/yyPe+ GveA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVjURPyYX1aBIbBpJzoe2I6IfPG4YE8zV3mx+u0X5rDdWLzhSBU Ou96vBWoofTH+OxOgWiU79IZFobSq8i2LiU6oJg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxD2GJgXKOiODdhR9oJld3C9eTw0igzyP+6gyJfxB9R8FWGItJ/GK48PrGYzYeNkGkNKf1ndXmx/vMSpKb5Qa8= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5324:: with SMTP id f4mr343181lfh.156.1559600943036; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:29:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Somers Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:28:51 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: should an incremental reload of exports for mountd be optional? To: Peter Eriksson Cc: Rick Macklem , "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1ABA47267E X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of asomers@gmail.com designates 209.85.167.66 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=asomers@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.07 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.973,0]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; IP_SCORE(-1.08)[ip: (0.31), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.39), asn: 15169(-2.29), country: US(-0.06)]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[66.167.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[66.167.85.209.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.17]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 22:29:06 -0000 I think that it should be always enabled. If the only reason not to is a fear of bugs in the new method, then the old method can be selected by some back-doorish workaround, like an environment variable. -Alan On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM Peter Eriksson wrote: > > My vote goes to: > > Enabled by default (with an option to disable it in case problems pop up). > > - Peter > > > > On 31 May 2019, at 23:50, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have created a patch for PR#237860 that improves the time it takes to reload > > the exports file(s) for an NFS file server from seconds->milliseconds by only doing > > system calls for the changes to the exports file(s). (Assumes each reload includes > > changes to only a small fraction of the entries.) > > > > I made it a non-default option of "-I", but asomers@ asked why it needed to be > > optional. > > > > Basically, I made it optional because I felt the patch might still be buggy and not > > handle some case of an exports file change that I missed. > > > > However, I can see the argument of making it non-optional (or optional but enabled > > by default) so that sysadmins don't need to add "-I" to avoid long periods where the > > nfsd threads are suspended. > > If it is broken, the deamon would need to be restarted to do a full reload, but that > > would also be the case if a sysadmin specified the "-I" option. > > > > So, the question is... "do you think this should be an option or just always enabled?". > > > > Thanks , rick > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"